Since the board passed the pilot pay for performance program, I will concede the point of using CEI's for the moment. Fine, use them.

But fix them first.

Teachers have the right to ask for correct and verifiable CEI's. Perhaps I've been using the wrong word--unfair. I think a better word is inaccurate.

Or at the very least, mysterious is good word. Teachers cannot verify who is on their roster--and thereby cannot verify who even might be used to calculate their CEI.

As it was explained, a teacher has added value if the student scores better than "expected" on the standardized test(s). Where does the teacher find what the "expected" score is? It seems logical to me that if there is an expected score the student must reach in order for me to have added value, I should be able to find what that score is. Again, where is that?

What will be done about teachers who have subjects attached to their name that they do not teach? I'm writing from an elementary teacher's perspective on this point. Here are the specifics--there are teachers at my school who teach only one subject. We departmentalize.

But these teachers have 2 or more TAKS tested subjects attached to their names because of the way the master schedule is written. I have been totally unsuccessful in getting any answer from anyone as to why that is occurring. Can anyone answer that for me, please? What can be done to correct that? As is stands, teachers who don't deserve the bonus might get it and vice versa.

It has been written that there is a grievance process if a teacher feels their CEI's are inaccurate. Will that process be shortened or expedited in order to meet next December's pay day? Why can't the teacher know now who is potentially on their CEI roster and the district correct mistakes now?

Now, if a teacher could get her hands on that information, let me tell you what I think any self-preserving teacher would do with it. She would analyze the students weakness according to the test data and teach to those weaknesses. She would also memorize those expected scores and test, analyze, benchmark, analyze, and test and benchmark until the student reaches that score, focusing only on the skills necessary to get the expected score on the standardized test.

Because $10,000 will motivate.

So will the possibility of losing your position. But is this what we truly want? Maybe I'm being very gloomy. I admit that is a pretty severe scenario but I don't think it's that far-fetched. What about the students at the top? What about the students at the bottom? What about students who have special needs?

I know that the editor of the website has asked for better ideas. I would call on the teachers and administrators of this district for better ideas. I believe the president of NEA-Dallas asked for better ideas in his address to the board. We will see if this pilot works and what the problems are as it goes along.

Like I wrote, this is sort of a white flag post from me. I will never support the idea of pay for performance for teachers because it is wrong. Teaching and learning are experiences. I don't think a number can be put on that. There are no peer reviewed studies that indicate that over time pay for performance really improves the students' learning.

I would encourage everyone to look at some of the data coming from Tennessee. Also, the President of the National Education Association just wrote an article that appeared in USA Today opposing tying teacher pay to test scores. Here is the link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/opposing-view-r.html

The CEI's are going to be used. I can't stop that for now.

I don't think it is unreasonable for me to request and even with all due respect, demand that they be accurate.